Thus, that includes any DETECTOR/OBSERVER!

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111058

is the first step, and this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605227

is the authors latest paper.

In para 3, he writes,

Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and grvaity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained inthe fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.

“Weird” and “spooky” imply -to the outsider- that there is something central that is not understood about how Quantum Mechanics works, when in fact we can compute results with it to remarkable accuracy. (Notice that I did not use the word “why” in the previous sentence, but “how”.)

What about the measurement problem? What is not understood is how to deal with quantum mechanical observers. The way QM is formulated rules out non-classical observers and is thus incomplete. Although one can argue that observers need to be large, you can in principle make intelligent quantum computers.

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a “black hole”.

Which ties in neatly with the Count’s Post!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-statistics_theorem

can be elaborated further?

All things having “already” been washed by GW’s, and thus fixed by expansion. Contraction of say a Bose-Nova(squeezed state), will reveal interesting properties regarding the GW’s signals.

Finite measure is achievable via local “Quantum TO Macro” paramiters, not “Macro to Quantum” !

Detection of gravity waves by phase modulation of the light from a distant star

We propose a novel method for detecting gravitational waves (GW), where a light signal emitted from a distant star interacts with a local (also distant) GW source and travels towards the Earth, where it is detected. While traveling in the field of the GW, the light acquires specific phase modulation (which we account in the eikonal approximation). This phase modulation can be considered as a coherent spreading of the given initial photons energy over a set of satellite lines, spaced at the frequency of GW (from quantum point of view it is multi-graviton absorption and emission processes). This coherent state of photons with the energy distributed among the set of equidistant lines, can be analyzed and identified on Earth either by passing the signal through a Fabry-Perot filter or by monitoring the intensity-intensity correlations at different times.

Perhaps there is a solution to the underlying “chicken and egg” problem in regards to the origins of entanglement and superpositioning… If one assumes the “tightly-bound, Pre-Bang” condition as having pure-state entanglement, then superpositioning can be viewed as an emergent feature of the expanding cosmos. Therefore, as the universe evolves with expansion, superpositioning “kicks-in” to create mixed-state entanglement.

Our Window on the Universe. Can it then be distorted?

One of the physical device limitations described by Dr. Packan is that transistor gates, as further miniaturization is pursued, will become so thin that quantum mechanical “tunneling” effects will arise. These quantum effects will create leakage current through the gate when the switch is “off” that is a significant fraction of the channel current when the device is “on”. This could reduce the reliability of the transistors resulting in increased cost and decreased availability of more powerful chips. In turn, this will affect every device that uses computer chips, from cell phones and pagers, to personal and business computers.

The aspect of detector/detection is parmount. I have an idea about the creation of a delayed “detector”, one that can infact be tuned to a “one-way” mode?

Again, one has to detect, before one is detected?

Just how one sets up the detector to gleen information, without disturbing the pure state, is akin to the early universe, the detector MUST recieve information of the system, BEFORE the system recieves information of the detecter?

Well, maybe develope a place, where such a beginning is understood? Create some association in ICCUBE and secondary particle recognitions? Of course they need a wide array of detectors?

If LHC can monitor in the calorimeter, then why not in how we percieve the “early universe” contained to events?

If, supersymmetrical relaizations from such a collapse created then what issues forth in terms of entanglement?

“Plectics” in this case, recognizes the very beginning?

Take an item in an entangled state as the only thing in existence (Universe with a two-particle content), then the only information you can learn about the entangled state, is the gravitational attraction of the two particle system?

Basically, if there were a system that was in so much isolation from anything/everything else (thats what must be attained, noise from anything will cause so much pollution) in the Universe, then GW’s would be “strong” in signal terms.

Making matter exist in a “PURE-STATE” is simply what must be achieved, any particle that is entangled, MUST be shielded from everything that could influence or collapse the state into a “non-entangled” system. The whole basis of Entanglement and superposition is that if one creates a “table-top” experiment, that is entanglement, then the two particle state is, whilst it exists, classed as the only things in existence, as far as those particles are concerned , nothing else in the “UNIVERSE” Exists?

Just how one sets up the detector to gleen information, without disturbing the pure state, is akin to the early universe, the detector MUST recieve information of the system, BEFORE the system recieves information of the detecter?

Interesting picture in your hands. What is it? Is it the picture in linked quote?

Scientists have detected a flash of light from across the Galaxy so powerful that it bounced off the Moon and lit up the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The flash was brighter than anything ever detected from beyond our Solar System and lasted over a tenth of a second. NASA and European satellites and many radio telescopes detected the flash and its aftermath on December 27, 2004. Two science teams report about this event at a special press event today at NASA headquarters.

-cvj

Thanks

Since I allegedly know something about gravitational waves, thought I’d take a look at this. My conclusion is very similar to Seth Lloyd’s — it’s a neat concept, but I have a hard taking this seriously as something that would be pursued anytime in the near (or even not-so-near) future.

The basic idea is that entanglement correlates the momentum and spin states of widely separated “test masses” (in this case, particles that respond to the passing GW). Hence, by monitoring spin states, you infer something about the momentum of the distant particles. Thinking of the GW as acting like a force (not something a GR purist would do, but a useful paradigm for exercises like this), you thus can in principle infer the action of a GW.

What’s missing from the paper is any discussion of practical issues. In particular, how can we tell a GW from noise? What makes something like LIGO feasible is that the GW signals are frequency bounded (so you can filter out noisy bands and focus on those of particular astrophysical interest), and spatially coherent with a particular angular distribution. Noise is incoherent and typically stochastic. One tries to take advantage of the coherency of the signal vs the incoherency of the noise to overcome the inherent weakness of the signal being searched for.

Where I can imagine this entanglement idea paying off is that you are essentially making the GW detector into a coherent quantum state. Thus, you presumably gain in sensitivity in proportion to N, the number of particles used in the detector. By contrast, a “classical” detector typically gains in sensitivity in proportion to sqrt(N) for appropriate definitions of N. (For example, the sensitivity in a laser interferometer at high frequencies is set by the number of photons gathered over a measurement, and goes with the square root of that number.)

My guess is you’d need an enormous N to overcome the inherent weakness of astrophysical GWs. The authors of this paper talk about an amplification procedure that could compensate for this weakness. Still, there’s a hell of a long way to go. The number of states that would need to be entangled to be sure of beating noise is probably pretty far beyond what is feasible anytime soon. Maybe when quantum computation is routine, this could be the next challenge for people interested in quantum measurement.

cheers,

scott h.